Hazard detection systems, such as smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, combination smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, as well as systems for detecting other conditions have been used in residential, commercial, and industrial settings for safety and security considerations. Many hazard detection systems operate according to a set of standards defined by a governing body (e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration), or companies approved to perform safety testing (e.g., Underwriters Laboratories (UL)). For example, UL defines thresholds for when a smoke detector should sound an alarm and for when a carbon monoxide detector should sound an alarm. Similar thresholds are set forth for how the alarms are expressed to occupants (e.g., as shrieking or shrill audible sounds having certain minimum loudness metrics and repetition patterns). Conventional hazard detection systems that operate solely based on these thresholds might be characterized as being relatively limited or simplistic in their modes of operation. For example, their mode of operation may be binary: either sound the alarm or do not sound the alarm, and the decision whether to sound the alarm may be based on a reading from only one type of sensor. These relatively simple and conventional systems can bring about one or more disadvantages. For example, users may be subjected to false alarms, or alarming associated with underlying causes or conditions that are not actually hazardous, that might have been avoided if there were a more complete assessment of the environment before the alarm were sounded. Alternatively, users may be subjected to certain conditions that may indeed be potentially hazardous or that may indeed be of genuine concern without the benefit of an associated alarm or warning, for the reason that while there may have been certain elevated levels of one or more hazard conditions, the binary thresholds for triggering the alarm may not have been met.